Talk:Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

What happened to the skepticism?

What happened to the skepticism? There's plenty of evidence suggesting Elizabeth Smart ran away, and then changed her story to support a kidnapping and preserve her family's reputation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p02s01-ussc.html

When the officers confronted her, she told them she was Mitchell's daughter and that her name was Augustine. "You think I'm that Elizabeth Smart girl that ran away and I'm not," she said.

She admitted she ran away, she cut the window screen from the INSIDE, etc. Whether it's true or not, it deserves a "Controversy" section, if only so it can be refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.54.203 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The article you linked has the quote you mentioned, but where is your "plenty of evidence" that she ran away? I have never EVER heard that theory bandied about in all of the discussion of this case I've heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.97.117 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The "plenty of evidence" is clearly Elizabeth Smart's own words as reported by police, which is corroborated by forensic evidence showing she cut her way out of the screen window of her house from the INSIDE. Obviously, that can't be done by a kidnapper coming from the OUTSIDE. Unless I'm mistaken, the story of what happened to Elizabeth Smart has been revised, and if the original version was the true version, then she seems to be villainizing a weird homeless man because of the damage it would do to her reputation to admit she joined him willingly. Qwasty (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Elizabeth Smart's testimony, Mitchell "placed his hand on my chest and then put the knife up to my neck. He told me to get up quietly and if I didn't then he would kill me and my family. He was whispering, but it was still loud enough it could wake someone. He was dressed in sweats, sweatshirt, stocking cap, tennis shoes."
After the child was led to the camp in the woods, Mitchell's wife "eventually just proceeded to wash my feet and told me to change out of my pajamas into a robe type of garment. And when I refused, she said if I didn't, she would have Brian Mitchell come rip my pajamas off. I put the robe on. He came and performed a ceremony, which was to marry me to him. After that, he proceeded to rape me." Tethered to a tree, Smart was raped sometimes as many as four times a day.
And it was Mitchell who changed the child's name to Augustine. ↜Just M E here , now 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Initially the story was that she was kidnapped with a gun, not a knife. I don't think this knife has ever been found, so it exists only in the stories so far, and there's no evidence that Brian Mitchell ever actually entered the house. If I remember correctly, after it became known that the window screen was cut from the inside, then the story was changed to say she was kidnapped with a knife. At the moment, I'm too lazy to find contemporary cites that show that timeline and change of story, but I'm sure anyone who wants to can do it. Maybe I'll do it later. Either way, the flaws in the story need to be put together in one place so it can be determined if they're significant or not.
For example, there were also minor flaws in Richard Ricci's story (two failed polygraphs, unverifiable alibi), which lead to his imprisonment, interrogation, refusal to confess, and then murder. But, in the end it turned out those flaws meant nothing because he really was innocent.
In Elizabeth Smart's case, either the flaws in the story mean nothing, and at best indicates she was suffering from severe Stockholm Syndrome that began in the first seconds of her abduction, or the flaws are a sign that she was a willing participant in the ordeal, which is what it looks like at first glance. From the minimal information in the article, there's not enough objective information for the reader to make any conclusions.
Qwasty (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Qwasty, can immediate "Stockholmd syndrome" simply be understood as a pubescent female's somewhat natural reaction when overpowered by a raiding older male, instilled in the psyche over millions of years as part of an instinct for self-preservation? You do realize that with a conspiracy theory involving a faked abduction involving Patty Hearst, we would at least be talking about an adult woman instead of a mild-mannered 14-year-old whom we would be speculating to conceivably have pre-planned an elopement with a mentally-ill, much older man whom by all accounts she had met just briefly previously. Still, such possible conspiracies, regardless of how unlikely, have to be at least entertained by the authorities as part of their investigative process -- so "rock on" with your armchair-quarterback's version, I guess. ↜Just M E here , now 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Qwasty said: "In Elizabeth Smart's case, either the flaws in the story mean nothing, and at best indicates she was suffering from severe Stockholm Syndrome that began in the first seconds of her abduction, or the flaws are a sign that she was a willing participant in the ordeal, which is what it looks like at first glance."
Qwasty, let's look at the following excerpts of Smart's testimony from the federal court transcipt:
Anything that I showed resistance or hesitation to, he would turn to me and say, the Lord has commanded you to do this. You have to experience the lowest form to be -- the lowest form of humanity to experience the highest.
Did he ever try to convince you that having sex with him was no big deal or normal?
Yes.
What would he say?
He said that's what a husband and a wife do.
[ ... ... ... ]
Did he think highly of himself?
Yes.
What was his opinion of himself?
That he was the Davidic king, that he was the Lord's servant, and he was doing the Lord's work.
[ ... ... ... ]
Let me have you pause. What was he wearing when he went with the Kemps?
It was more casual attire. He had his hair pulled back in a ponytail, and he had an elastic around his beard so it was --
Was he in that robe that he typically was in, the religious-type robe?
No. No.
Was he in regular clothes?
Yes.
Did he indicate to you that he pretended to be someone else to them?
Yes.
And what did he say?
He said that he pretended to be an investigator in the church, and that by doing that they'd invited him into their home. And he saw a picture of a young girl on the piano, and he asked them if it was their granddaughter, and they laughed. And the wife said, no, it's my daughter. I'm divorced from my first husband, and she spends every other weekend and Wednesdays here. And so he asked a few more questions about her, and then went on as if nothing was normal -- as if nothing was abnormal.
Did he tell you what the purpose of his meeting with the Kemps was?
Yes. He said he was going out to find the second wife.
Did he indicate to you about the age of this girl that he noticed in the photo?
Yes. He said she looked about my age.
[ ... ... ... ]
Winter was starting to get closer, and the underground house that they were digging was nowhere near being finished. And so they decided that they would have to move somewhere warmer. And then he said that he felt that that was what the Lord wanted him to do and that they were going to go find wife number two.
Was there any other reason why he wanted to leave Utah?
As far as I know, that was it, just away for the winter and to find another young woman.
-- Qwasty, I myself just don't see much in Mitchell's attempts at brainwashing that would tend to point to some extended period of pedophilic grooming of his intended victim, as you've speculated. Also, click the link here and scroll down a bit to see the campsite where Smart had been brought to immediately after her leaving her bedroom with Mitchell. Do these digs look like a type of environment that a 14-year-old upper middle-class girl would "run away" of her own volition to?
Also see "Understanding Stockholm Syndrome" (hosted on the FBI's website).

[...W]hen authorities rescued and safely returned her [Smart] home, people questioned how, in 9 months, she could not escape or ask someone—anyone—for help. But, her abductors did not hold her captive, as initially believed. In fact, she walked in public, attended parties, and even refused to reveal her true identity when first approached by police. Perhaps, even more puzzling than her initial reluctance to escape was her apparent concern upon rescue about the fate of her captors. “What’s going to happen to them? Are they in trouble?” she asked. When informed by officers that they likely would face punishment, she started to cry and sobbed the whole way to the station.

And finally:

Cut Screen Story Was the Start. May 4, 2003. The most damaging falsehood in the Elizabeth Smart saga had nothing to do with a diary or sexual preferences or the inconclusive polygraph tests, relatives say. It had to do with a window covering. "It was the screen," said Tom Smart, Elizabeth's uncle. Smart is referring to the entry point used by the man who took his niece on June 5 and how a story by two reporters, citing anonymous sources, used the cut screen to cast suspicion on the Smart[...]. (link to Salt Lake Tribue newstory) ↜Just M E here , now 07:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does deserve a Controversy section. If Wikipedia is to be a very open site, this information should be published. There are enough citations to support this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.32.13 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Give us a reliable source to support your claim. Cresix (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete merge tag

while merge discussion is under way on the Brian David Mitchell talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(No longer underway.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seperate articles and redirect restucturing

I just changed the redirection of Elizabeth Ann Smart so it goes to Elizabeth A. Smart. I think with her being employed by ABC as an expert on the experience of families with members of the family abducted we have probably reached a point where she has independent notability. I am thinking that we have also reached a point where the talk pages of Elizabeth A. Smart and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping need to be seperated. It might be worth discussing whether Elizabeth Ann Smart or Elizabeth A. Smart is a better article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Seperate talk pages

I just made the Elizabeth A. Smart talk page seperate. It really does not make sense to have seperate articles with the same talk page, especially with Elizabeth being highered as a consultant by a national TV news network, so that there is a growing body of discussions related to her that have no relevance to her kidnapping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1st paragraph need fixing

The last 4 sentences did not flow

"Barzee, in 2009, and Mitchell, in 2010, were eventually convicted. Her abduction and recovery were widely reported and were the subject of a made-for-television movie and a published book. He was held in the Salt Lake County Jail following his sentencing on May 25, 2011. On August 31, he was transferred to federal prison to begin serving a life sentence for his crimes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvo (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PSI Tech

It might be a nice idea to add a section about PSI Tech's (www.remoteviewing.com) psychic attempts to help find Elizabeth. You can find their own post-find article about it, in which they attempt to dress up their complete failure to find her (or even identify the state of her health) at http://www.remoteviewing.com/remote-viewing-news-articles/the-signal-line/031403/index.html.

You might also search for other sources on the topic of this failure, such as at: http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=557. This site, although not terribly professional, certainly brings to question the "talents" of PSI Tech's corp of psychics, and brings to light their attempts to cover up their failure. ReveurGAM (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I see no reason why we should report on the total failure of a group to have any effect on the status or discovery of Miss Smart. Covering how certain things did not effect other things just does not make sense. Including this is just a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are 3 reasons: One, her parents, after hearing of their efforts, directly contacted PSI Tech and requested that they assist in the location of their daughter. Second, the negative findings of PSI Tech had a significant emotional impact on her parents. Third, Wikipedia should be comprehensive, not minimalist, don't you think?ReveurGAM (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be encyclopedic - not full of trivial facts. If Wikipedia was comprehensive, each entry would be a book. MarkinBoston (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Granted, a book is not needed. However, I strongly disagree with your categorization of the first two reasons I gave as being "trivial" - that is demeaning to the family and trivializes the emotional stress that arose from PSI Tech's failure and, indeed, misleading (or perhaps deliberately deceptive) statements before, during and after the event. Do what you will - I grow tired of Wikipedia editors who can't see beyond their own limited scope.ReveurGAM (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category

An attempt was made to add Category:Mormonism-related controversies to this article, but I really don't see how this fits. Please discuss the reasons why this meets some reasonable inclusion criteria here on this talk page before adding it back in. -- 71.223.127.117 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A section about what it was like for Elizabeth Smart while a captive is needed

MikeWren (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally I don't think that a section discussing this type of material is fair to the young woman. If you read the articles section talking about her experience with Nancy Grace, you can see that the girl doesn't want to discuss what happened to her. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but I have to question what the purpose of a section outlining the sick details of her abduction would accomplish other than just damaging the girls future. There is already a timeline with short summaries and that should be sufficient. Redrok84 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to have accurate and relevant information on the subjects of the article. Knowledge is power and Censorship is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.155.29 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So might makes right, huh? Knowledge is power and power is always good (?!) Wrad (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Yet needs to be added. It's pretty boring with out it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.16.221 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a source of popular culture also. There's a Dave Chapelle bit about how she could have basically walked away at any time, and a Maddox page about it. I actually explicitly came here to see a balanced account (not played up for comedic effect), but was disappointed that it was all just about the search. Wikipedia is the repository of human knowledge. Humans, deposit your knowledge! 0x0077BE (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Elizabeth Smart has no notability aside from being a kidnap victim, and the two articles should be merged. Jpatokal (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge: The Right thing to do!

You're going to need to come up with a slightly more convincing argument than that to convince me to remove to merge tags. Jpatokal (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP1E, If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. as well as ...when an individual plays a major role in a minor event, ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Can you find me any sources that cover Ms Smart as anything but a former kidnap victim? Jpatokal (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I say that for now, Elizabeth Smart is not particularly notable for anything other than her alleged kidnapping. Maybe that will change in the future, but for now, there's a lot of people more notable than she is for activism, but who aren't notable enough for their own article. At best, her activism is worthy of maybe a paragraph or two in this article under an aftermath section. Qwasty (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Smart is notable for 1 event and she can be adequately covered in the kidnapping article. She isn't particularly well known as an activist and any activites there are a direct extension of what she is known for, the kidnapping. This can all be well covered in the kidnapping article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep separate She isn't notable for one event, she has established notability after the fact as a political activist. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you find any WP:RS establishing that notability? Jpatokal (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm not seeing evidence that she's a noted for anything by this one event. A Google news search will bring up tons of hits but after looking through 10 pages of them, I'm not finding anything that is not directly related to the single event of her kidnapping. There's coverage of the competency hearing for her abductor, mentions of her appearance on Larry King or a few other programs, and coverage of the recovery process for her and her family but all of these are related to the kidnapping. Her father has appeared before congressional committee considering amber alert legislation [1] and she's appeared once as well there but this is all directly related to the kidnapping. Its going to take a lot more before she's known for anything other than this one event.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep separate The qualifier for WP:BLP1E is that the individual remain "low-profile," which she has not. Smart is a household name and has moved on with her life to bigger and better things. —Eustress talk 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
She is a household name for the kidnapping. I'm still waiting for any WP:RS establishing notability for anything other than being kidnapped: meeting Bush, commenting on other people kidnapped, playing the harp or becoming a missionary don't cut it. Jpatokal (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • merge this is a really clear case where only the kidnapping is notable. If she should become notable later, there is no deadline. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That happened in 2003, when she was found alive. BlueAnthem (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge lest you honestly believe the PROTECT Act of 2003 and her subsequent roles surrounding the issue of child abduction are not notable or you believe that Elizabeth Smart has been low profile after her abduction. Neither are true. BlueAnthem (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. No-brainer. No one would care about Elizabeth Smart if she hadn't been kidnapped. Vidor (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. She is only notable in relation to this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.95.103 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Elizabeth has co-authored with 4 others and the Justice Department a booklet on surviving a kidnapping which on its own would justify a separate entry as a co-author, as it does for the other 4 who helped with that book You're Not alone. She has also lobbied congress and others, as a recent women's conference notes: "Elizabeth has helped promote The National AMBER Alert, The Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act and other safety legislation to help prevent abductions. Last year Elizabeth worked with the Department of Justice and four other recovered young adults in creating a survivors guide ..." ( The Womens Conference hosted by California's First Lady ). I'd say that this last description alone amply satisfies WP:RS. She isn't only getting on with her life in college or the mission but has become a child protection advocate in her own right, and I'd say good for her! If anything, eventually wikipedia will probably need a page on 'Elizabeth Smart: child protection advocate' etc Wombat24 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Smart has attained independent notability outside of the kidnapping through her activism, TV appearances, and the fact she has had writings published. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. 99% of the public only know her for being kidnapped. Her article proves that. The part of her article that talks about the rest of her life isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.54.67 (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems likely that this discussion has closed, but I think it's probably worth noting that even if most people know her for one event, that doesn't mean it's the only thing she can be notable for. You can imagine that most people who know of Jenny Lewis know her as a musician, but the work she did as an actress as a child (lead role in The Wizard, for example) would be sufficient to merit an article anyway. 0x0077BE (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an error

In the last paragraph of Search and investigation, it says- The town was then covered with blue and yellow balloons to honor the safe return of Elizabeth Smart. The same color of the ribbons that had once marked that she was still missing.

That doesn't actually make sense to me, but I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.22.108 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Misapplication of BLP standard to non-BLP article and non-BLP section.

BLP clearly doesn't apply to this "Search and Investigation" section. It's well established (going back to March 2009) that BLP doesn't apply to the article. The article was even renamed to reflect that. BLP definitely doesn't apply to the WHOLE "Search and investigation" section. Any non-trivial fact about any LP should have a ref meeting BLP standards. But, this section is not a BLP and should not as a whole be held to BLP standards as implied by "BLP" being in the tag. Tag individual sentences if needed, although you will find very few of them. 73.119.161.105 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be clear from both my and @TJRC's edit summaries that you do not have consensus for this change, and that we disagree with your reasoning as you expressed it in your summaries. To recap those summaries here, WP:BLP does indeed apply anywhere in Wikipedia where living people are discussed, even on Talk pages; this article contains sensitive biographical information concerning a number of living people (Ms. Smart, as well as those who abducted her); hence we maintain that the BLP version of the template is appropriate, even if the article is not, narrowly defined, a biography. Further, the change is trivial, since the message appearing to readers of the article is identical regardless of which version of the template is used. You will need to seek consensus for your change, perhaps through RfC, or by posting the question at the BLP Noticeboard. In the mean time, the article, and specifically the {{BLP sources section}} template in question, should remain at its consensus version per Wikipedia policy. General Ization Talk 00:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll acknowledge that I misstated one fact above: the BLP version of the template does indeed refer, in the message box visible to readers, to the article as a biography of a living person, whereas {{refimprove}} does not. (I was erroneously looking at the template at the top of the page rather than the one you proposed to modify.) Consequently, assuming you acknowledge that BLP still applies to this article, and other articles that contain sensitive biographical information, even if they are not biographies per se, I'll withdraw my objection to the change you've proposed. However, I still encourage you to bring this kind of issue to the Talk page before approaching WP:3RR, to help avoid this kind of conflict in the future. General Ization Talk 02:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The BLP sources section template should continue to be used in preference to the Refimprove section template. The purpose of flagging it as a BLP is that it does refer to text that refers to a living person, and that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply -- which they do.
Any issue with the text generated by the template should be addressed by proposing changes to the template, not by removing the template. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
E.g., a proposal to change the section variant of the {{BLP Sources}} template to display this text would not be inappropriate:

"This section, which contains biographical content concerning a living person, needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. ..."

The IP should note that "BLP" ≠ "biography". "BLP" is not a type of article, but a Wiki-wide policy concerning how we approach content concerning living (or recently dead) persons in any article. Consequently, there is no such thing as a "non-BLP article" or a "non-BLP section", though there are many articles that are not intended to be biographies of living people. General Ization Talk 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What sentences in the section require BLP-standard refs?

Maybe this will help:
What specific sentences in the section require BLP-standard refs?
We can tag them with a special "BLP empowered" tag (of some sort to be determined). Let me see if I can identify some (stand by...) 73.119.161.105 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
........................................
Here we go. So the question at hand is "Is the sentence BLP?".
(I've added my assessment in bold after each sentence.)

1) A massive regional search effort, organized by the Laura Recovery Center, looked for Elizabeth in the days immediately following her abduction. not BLP
2) Up to 2,000 volunteers a day were dispatched to the area surrounding her home trying to find any trace of the missing girl. not BLP
3) Word spread quickly as an impromptu coalition of websites facilitated the distribution of information about Elizabeth Smart with flyers that could be downloaded for printing or immediately circulated online by email or Internet fax. not BLP
3) Volunteers combed the hills near her family's home and extended the search using search dogs and aircraft. not BLP
4) After many days of intensive searching, the community-led search was closed by the local volunteers and efforts were directed to other means of finding Elizabeth. not BLP
5) Although police had an eyewitness in Mary Katherine, her report was not very helpful to investigators. not BLP
6) Furthermore, there was almost no significant forensic evidence such as clear fingerprints or DNA samples to help identify the abductor, hindering the investigation. not BLP
7) A search using bloodhounds was unsuccessful in following Mitchell and Elizabeth's path on foot. not BLP
9) Police questioned and interviewed hundreds of potential suspects including one individual, Bret Michael Edmunds, a 26-year-old drifter who was pursued across the country but ultimately was cleared of suspicion in the case after being located in a West Virginia hospital suffering from a drug overdose. not BLP (maybe characterizing BME like that would be, it would certainly need an ordinary-quality ref or it can simply be removed)
10) One by one, the leads that were pursued often put at-large criminals back in prison, but they did not produce the desired result of finding Elizabeth. not BLP
11) The Salt Lake City police ultimately announced that their prime person of interest in the case was Richard Ricci, a handyman who had worked for the Smarts. not BLP (he's dead)
12) Ricci died in jail from a brain hemorrhage a few weeks after he refused to provide a confession to Utah corrections officers. not BLP (he's dead)
13) With his death, it seemed that all leads were exhausted. not BLP
14) When the actual kidnappers were apprehended nine months after Elizabeth's abduction, Ricci's widow issued a statement expressing relief at Smart's safe return and her husband's innocence. not BLP
15) On December 18, 2015, Angela Morse Ricci committed suicide, her son stating she never recovered from her husband's death. not BLP (she's dead)
16) The Smarts and their extended family persistently maintained a presence in the local and national media, in order to keep Elizabeth's name in the press, providing the media with home videos of her as a teenager and as a child, and created a website to serve as a resource center. not BLP (the website and other releases might contain BLP, but this is about those things and no more)
17) After several months, a breakthrough came in October 2002, when Mary Katherine suddenly remembered where she had heard Mitchell's voice, telling her parents, "I think I know who it is: Emmanuel." not BLP, just a fact of the record of events, and cited also
18) The Smarts sought to help unemployed people in the community by paying them for odd jobs or handy work around the property. not BLP
19) Mitchell, who called himself "Emmanuel", had been the one who informed many homeless people that the Smarts would hire them and also worked for them himself one day. not BLP (calling him "homeless" might be, but it can also be removed)
20) He worked at the Smarts' home for five hours, helping on the roof and raking leaves. not BLP
21) Mary Katherine now identified "Emmanuel"/Mitchell as the man who had abducted her sister. not BLP
22) When this was reported to the police, they had doubts as to its reliability. not BLP
23) Mary Katherine had barely heard the suspect's quiet voice and for only a few minutes, and had just awakened from sleep. not BLP
24) When it was reported several months later that she thought it was the voice of a man she had only met briefly and more than a year before, the police did not consider it a worthy lead. not BLP
25) Tensions developed as the parents accused the police of not thoroughly following up on this lead. not BLP
26) The family used the services of sketch artist Dalene Nielson to draw "Emmanuel's" face from memory. not BLP
27) In February, this drawing was released to the media, with the assistance of John Walsh, who revealed it in an appearance on Larry King Live and on his own series, America's Most Wanted. not BLP
28) The drawing was recognized by Emmanuel's family, who reported his actual name, Brian David Mitchell, to the police and provided them with contemporary photographs of Mitchell. not BLP
29) On March 12, 2003, just over nine months after the abduction, Mitchell, who was now wanted by police for questioning, was spotted traveling with two people in Sandy, Utah, by an alert biker who had heard of the kidnapping on America's Most Wanted the night before and alerted police. not BLP
30) The people were Elizabeth Smart—disguised in a gray wig, sunglasses, and veil — and Wanda Ileen Barzee. not BLP
31) Smart was finally recognized by the officers during questioning, and was promptly reunited with her family. not BLP
32) Mitchell and Barzee were taken into custody as alleged kidnappers. not BLP

That's a lot of text up there, I know. But, it has been made necessary to do that to show clearly that the section has very little actual BLP in it. What little there is can be addressed by slight modification of the sentences. There is indeed much material needing references, but it's not BLP material. So, the ordinary section tag saying "needs refs" at the top should not be saying "This is BLP so it really really needs really really good refs".

73.119.161.105 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording of BLP section tag looks stupid

That ridiculous BLP section tag says:
"This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help ..."

It refers to the article as if the article is a BLP, which the article is not. (Established 8 years ago)
This was the reason I initially altered it to be a normal section "needs refs" tag... because it just looks so stupid! :-)

73.119.161.105 (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

G h h j

Yvyvh h h 59.102.51.102 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Elizabeth_Smart/Archive_2&oldid=1136875105"